Talk:Germanium/Archive 1

Ge-76 now listed as unstable
Ge-76 can decay via double beta decay.

"Standard" double beta decay with emission of two neutrinos has been reported by the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment (see http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/non_acc/ but beware - horrible homepage). Journal reference: Eur.Phys.J.A12:147-154,2001 but also available as eprint, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0103062. The half-life is very long, though, about 1.55 \pm 0.2 \times 10^{25} years.

Mentioning that Ge-76 is currently the isotope in focus in the search neutrinoless double beta decay might be a good idea - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrinoless_double_beta_decay

I am new to Wikipedia and did not dare to just change the page. Sorry... 80.145.0.52 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The 10^25 half-life seems to be refering to the not-clearly-observed neutrinoless double beta decay, and should be considered only as a lower limit. The ordinary double beta decay half life is listed (if I understand it correctly) as 1.78 x 10^21 years here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0309016. From looking at a graph, the decay energy looks to be about 0.7 Mev, but I'm leaving that blank in the table since I can't find it written out anywhere.

Germanium whiskers
Article should mention "germanium whiskers" (screw dislocations) that grow in germanium, and that these are the primary cause of failure in electronics containing pure germanium. linas 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nutrient?
Germanium is listed as an essential nutrient and dietary mineral, but there are no biological roles listed in this article. Is it biologically significant? Either way, those two articles should be updated (even if just to remove the "dubious" tag). -- Beland 04:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC) I changed these lists to allign them with modern biochemistry. There is no demonstrated biological role for Ge.--Smokefoot 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * states: Germanium is another element added to the list of ultratrace elements since 1984.--Stone 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Value
This looks like a graphable section. Can somebody graph it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naidevinci (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose I'll throw the numbers into Excel and make a little chart. No guarantees that the section will stay there, but we might as well make it look nice. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

de.wiki
somebody that can translate well German should take a look at the article on German wiki and add some stuff from there. Nergaal (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, check the reference 8 entitled "Germanium: From Its Discovery to SiGe Devices" for further details about history. Nergaal (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ocean and biosphere


The fate of the germanium in the ocean would be a good addition to the article.--Stone (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

todo
Should we mention that the Cadillac DeVille uses a raytheon night vision system with germaniu ir optics? (GERMANIUM, Robert D. Brown, Jr. ,U.S. Geological Survey 2000) --Stone (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * so what is the article missing besides c/e-ing and in some places references? Nergaal (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its good and we should go for GA!--Stone (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The purest substance?
I think that the statement that germanium is "the element that has been obtained in the highest purity" is a bit dubious, and the source is not the most convincing. This may be one of those factoids that get propagated without reference whether they are true or not (maybe it is true, but I'm not convinced). I haven't yet found any recent and credible source that explicitly compares ultrapure germanium with ultrapure silicon and says which one is purer. From Google books search, I found several books that simply said germanium was the purest substance, but they were all from the 1950s - 1960s. A few more recent books tended to favor silicon, and one said it has been prepared with a purity of 1 in 1015 (most of these are just "snippet views", unfortunately). I think it is possible that germanium was purest first, but may have been overtaken by silicon. I also note that other books and articles I found make the much safer claim that the element in question is "one of the purest" substances. However, this "rivalry" between germanium and silicon may be moot: Other sources say that the purest substance ever made is in fact superfluid helium-3! See for example this book. Of course, one could redefine the "award" to only include substances that one is able to make in large amounts and touch, or something else that would exclude crazy substances like superfluid helium. Because if we include this kind of physics, we might as well say that the Bose-Einstein condensate, consisting of perhaps 10,000 rubidium atoms, was also perfectly pure. ;-)

To conclude, what is to be done? I suggest replacing the statement with "one of the elements that have been obtained in the highest purity" and using a better reference. I think the book I just quoted would be a reasonable choice, but I'm sure there are better options hiding somewhere. --Itub (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did also search for purity and found 11N or 12N for silicon would be max, but no good statment about the purest element and when the lead changed. So lets get rid of the statement.--Stone (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "One of the purest substances" is probably neutral enough to be included. If the book is reliable enough, you could even add a note saying that it was the purest obtained substane in the 50s-60s.Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

why?
did this get deleted? "For a long time the major application for germanium was infrared optics. Unlike most semiconductors, germanium has a small band gap, allowing it to efficiently respond to infrared light. It is therefore used in infrared spectroscopes and other optical equipment which require extremely sensitive infrared detectors. Its dioxide's index of refraction and dispersion properties make germanium useful in wide-angle camera lenses and in microscope objective lenses. "

The first and the last sentence are already very similar in a other section and coul go. The midle section had no reference and I wanted to check before reinsert it.--Stone (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cost
The cost of germanium over the years is given, but with no explaination why costs fell and then rose again. From the article I'd guess its decreasing abundance is the reason and the need for a greater percentage to be recycled but this is not explicitely stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.251.229 (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Silicon-germanium
The author of the electronics section seems to prefer silicon-germanide instead of silicon-germanium. Since silicon-germanium is the established term for it and it refers to a solid solution between two similar elements I would prefer that. While a germanide may be non-stochiometric over some limited range one would expect some kind of distinctive composition ratio, not a wide continuous composition range. Furthermore if named as an "-ide compound" it ought to be germanium silicide since silicon is more elektronegative!
 * Agree. Deleted germanide as rare term for SiGe. Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Newlands
The article on Newlands says "he predicted the existence of Germanium". This is not consistent with the present article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.171.194 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This might be the same issue as with the periodic table: several scientists devised it in some form around the same time, but Mendeleev's results were perhaps better justified, more systematic and better publicized after the discovery. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with geranium
It seems many people misspell one as the other, so why not put "not to be confused with geranium" at the top of the article? Neon Merlin  19:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's a pretty obvious mistake to realise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Electrical conductivity units are incorrect
Instead of Ohm it should be Ohm-m or Ohm-cm or somesuch. (209.239.242.30) (ancient comment, done) Femto 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Ohm-m is the SI derived unit for resistivity. Conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity, but the Siemens unit (S) is defined as the reciprocal of Ohm. Therefore the SI derived unit for (electrical) conductivity is the siemens per metre (S·m-1).Laburke (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

needed
Nergaal (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) more on germanium compounds.
 * 2) expand intro.

Actually, the intro should be corrected first. The correct expression is "high" concentration not "large" concentration because concentration is a percentage or an amount per volume. Germanium's relative abundance in the earth's crust is 51st (according to the Wikipedia link). This is not "relatively abundant" and 51st ranks with the rare earths. The reason for Germanium's late discovery is that very few minerals contain it in high enough concentration. I will change the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph to place emphasis on the main point, Ge was discovered relatively late. I'll also put in a reference to nanowires, which is a developing field.Laburke (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Things which should go

 * The nuclear batteries of Bruce Perreault should not be in the article.This a patent with no further references except the http://www.nuenergy.org/ hompage of the inventor!


 * The fact that GeO2 is replacement for SiO2 for chromatography, which I can find not even a web reference on.
 * http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Medical-Device-Business-Week/2008-02-20/902202008344MDB.html

right, but only one publication, with no comercial application.


 * The (2-Carboxyethylgermanium)sesquioxide or better Ge132, which is a dubious HIV and cancer cure should be in the applications section and out of the chemistry section. We have to expand this on the danger that the NPOV germanium eaters will come vandalizing this page or we should get rid of the substance.


 * The statement that germanium is the purest element was true some time ago I think: 1 in 1010 means 99.99999999 or 8N grade germanium while you can buy 12N silicon meaning 99.999999999999 or 1 in 1014 purety.

Anybody a good suggestion?--Stone (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * About the purity: do you think you coult find a ref? #2 is still worth mentioning, expecially with a goot ref. Nergaal (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Difficult, to find a ref saying germanium was the purest but now its silicon. I will try! #2 We have to take into account that the germanium food supplement story was an asian thing beginning in the 1970s, but there a lot of people used the stuff. Some people marketed it as miracle drug against HIV and cancer. The discovery which began was the claims that ginseng and other medical plants contain germanium in high dosages were wrong. A japanese chemist invented Ge132. The Ge132 was marketed and used and due to the low toxicity of germanium nothing happened for a long time. Than a scientist published results that 50 - 300 gramms of germanium in 6 to 36 months could lead to renal dysfunction and death. (two deaths ). The studies are under attack because the bad inorganic germanium is resposible for this problems (impureties in the supplement due to synthesis problems or criminal intent), the good organic Ge132 is less toxic and even gramm quantities are no problem is story of the Ge132 activists. They say that the pharma industry banns germanium, because they fear for their money. So this is a good story to get something similar controverse to depleted uranium and water fluoridation.--Stone (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Query if worth noting that the term 'organic' is being used in the biochemical sense, rather than with the common (if ignorant) 'no chemicals' meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

lattice constant
I removed parameter 5.658, unused in infobox element (does not show). -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Germanium. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=31285

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germanium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080805204801/http://www.sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/~SiGe/Silicon%20Germanium%20%28SiGe%29%20History.html to http://www.sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/~SiGe/Silicon%20Germanium%20%28SiGe%29%20History.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

older comments
Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 13:28, 1 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 17:38, 14 June 2005). 14 June 2005

Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Germanium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Germanium Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units. --

Talk
From the Applications section: "While germanium has been claimed as an attractive nutritional supply, " Perhaps supply should be replaced with supplement. [edit]

Actually, this entire statement is a fallacy. One of the greatest misconceptions in the alternative health/medical community is regarding the alleged dangers of germanium ingestion. Anyone conducting thorough research regarding organic germanium (online would be sufficient) will soon discover several truths:

1. The only viable form of germanium for ingestion is organic Germanium-132, otherwise known as Germanium Sesquioxide, and is found naturally in ginseng, aloe, garlic, and shiitake mushrooms. 2. Other forms of germanium are indeed toxic and should not be consumed, but Germanium-132 (a naturally occurring mineral) should not be confused with elemental germanium (Ge). 3. The purported ill health effects and deaths occurred because certain unscrupulous manufacturers imported a cheap grade of so-called organic germanium from Asia that had been "cut" with other types of germanium (either by accident due to ignorance or design due to greed) to increase profit. 4. The only "germanium" dietary supplements that are safe for human consumption are those from U.S. manufacturers and are clearly labeled Germanium-132 "certified organic" and clearly describe a point of origin. 5. The FDA intervened in the previous case involving death and its custom agents have continued to restrict the importation of germanium into the country even while some of their own chemists have pointed out the error of incorrectly misidentified Germanium-132 as being similar or "the same thing" as other types of germanium. However, the two are completely different substances! 6. The vast majority of references to the "dangers of germanium" in scientific literature all, to this day, cite a study of years ago wherein the researcher mistakenly lumped organic Ge-132 along with all forms of germanium, including the non-organic or toxic variety. 7. Even though this prominent researcher later redacted his findings, the disparity continues to be erroneously replicated to this day out of ignorance. 8. A host of clinical studies have demonstrated the reduction of cancerous tumors in animals ingesting organic Germanium-132, and not one single death has ever been attributed to the consumption of this type.

Do not be confused. Truly organic Germanium-132 (safe for human consumption even in large amounts) is NOT the same thing as elemental Germanium (GE).

Germanium in very small trace amounts may cure cancer
Germanium has shown no less than 'miraculous' results in fighting cancer. In Japan, germanium has been used to help treat cancer for the past 30 years. Yet it has only been recently that the exact mechanism by which it works to tackle cancer has been uncovered.

Researchers found that germanium reduces the spread of cancer by slowing down the process that causes cancer cells to multiply. At the same time, the researchers observed that germanium didn't interfere with normal, healthy cells, which were left alone to grow and carry out their functions as nature intended (Chun Hua Yen 2000, 36(4):263-266).

Two years ago, a case study confounded many scientists and other members of the medical profession. It involved a patient suffering from a very rare and highly malignant form of lung cancer, called spindle cell carcinoma. Even with radical surgery, combined with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, only a small percentage of patients with this condition live more than a couple of years.

This particular patient had shown no initial response to any of the conventional treatments, and decided to take germanium supplements as a last resort instead. Doctors were astounded to find that even after four years, X-rays showed that the patient was completely free of cancer and that the disease didn't return (Chest 2000, 117(2):591-593).

Unsigned comment

...

Whoever wrote that comment must have written it in about 2002, as the person wrote "Two years ago, a case study.... Chest 2000".

Perhaps this was the Chest 2000 case report of a very rare form cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10669709

http://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(15)48656-8/fulltext

"The patient started daily self-medication with the same regimen (bis-betacarboxyethygermanium sesquioxide, 7.2 g qd, followed by a taper of the drug. . . . At the time of this report, > 4 years after initial diagnosis, the patient continues to show no evidence of recurrent disease and has also continued to take low-dose germanium sesquioxide. The patient denies any significant side effects from her treatment".

"Unfortunately germanium sesquioxide and spirogermanium showed extremely limited activity in these studies and significant dose-related nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity".

"Less likely, although equally interesting, is the possibility that this patient had a spontaneous remission of a particularly aggressive malignancy unrelated to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or germanium use".

ee1518 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Prediction images
In the early periodic tables, Ge is predicted. We could add a detail from File:Mendeleev's 1871 periodic table.jpg, Si=28 &mdash;=72 Sn=118 &mdash; Pb=207 or File:Mendeleev's 1869 periodic table.png (the row containing C=12 Si=28 ?=70 Sn=118). As a TFA blurb image (150 year annniversary!), the 1869 version might be perferable (also it is more simple). -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 1869 prediction: Mendeleev 1869 prediction of germanium (detail).svg


 * This was begfore transponing cols/rows (Si - ?/Ge - Sn = group 14 (IV). -DePiep (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

different values infobox - bodytext
Some small, annoying differences in isotopes data between article body and infobox. From the article text (infobox value added in [] brackets:
 * half-life of $270.95 days$ays. [270.8 d]
 * having a natural abundance of approximately 36%. [36.52%] no sources, followed the isotope page tble.
 * natural abundance of approximately 7% [7.75%]

Values to be aligned. to check Isotopes of germanium. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

And: 76Ge is in the infobox, but not mentioned in the text. -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * done, fwiw. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

germanium-dating
An old wallpaper periodic table apparently dated by Erc Scerri by the absence of Ge (so pre 1886). -DePiep (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Semiconductor related properties not listed
Germanium has been suggested to be used as a semiconductor here, but there are little or no properties relevent to semiconductors listed in the tables at the side (or in the document). I think it would be a good idea to make properties such as mobility, band gap, etc. part of the general template for semiconductor materials on wikipedia.

News (useful link)
Scientists in Germany have come up with a method for extracting Germanium from plants. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/07/us-germany-germanium-plants-idUSKCN0R71BY20150907

First decade of semiconductor electronics
The lead has "Historically, the first decade of semiconductor electronics was based entirely on germanium." This makes one wonder why. My guess would be that it pure enough Silicon was not as readily available, but that's a total guess. Anyone know why and willing to update the article? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
This element was discovered and named in German language. Why do we need to tell the English pronunciation? ZJ (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because this is the English language page. People may want to know how to say the word. A German pronunciation should go in de:Germanium Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Germanene
Is Germanene an allotrope? To be mentioned? -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Worth a see-also link, if nothing else. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)